Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Barenreiter edition - Mozart Piano Sonata no.16, K.545

Hi! I'm new here I printed out the Barenreiter Urtext edition from IMSLP website: Mozart Piano Sonata no.16
I noticed in measure 7, on the first beat, the left hand plays a D and a B but in other editions on the website like the C.F. Peters, it is a D and a C.

My Question is, are they both acceptable? Is the one in the Barenreiter edition more preferred/correct? I've noticed a footnote below the Barenreiter edition but i can't read german lol.

The version in the Peters edition is the preferred one. It's hard to be definitive because the autograph score is lost, but the parallel passage at bar 48 in the recapitulation clearly includes the suspension, and most editions include the suspension in the exposition as well; that specific type of variation between expo and recap would not be typical of Mozart, while the suspension is. The recent and fairly definitive New Mozart Edition also includes that suspension, and they based their version on several of the earliest available editions. So I would say that the weight of evidence is in favour of the Peters version.

Thanks for the insight!

Adding to what karvala said, my Henle Urtext agrees with the Peters edition.

And welcome to the forum!

The footnote says:
T.7, linke Hand, 1. Viertel: So in den Vorlagen; vgl. aber T.48.

Which means:
Measure 7, left hand, first quarter note: So in the exposition; compare however measure 48.

My Bärenreiter edition is in English, and the footnote reads, "Bar 7, left hand, first crotchet: so given in the sources; cf., however, bar 48." The notes in the preface explain that the composer's autograph is missing for this sonata, so "the sources" are the first three editions (1805-09).

A more explanatory version of the note would be: "All the early editions printed what we show here, but if you compare it to bar 48 where the same passage returns, you may decide it's a mistake."

Thanks for the replies guys! I'll be bringing this up with my piano teacher

Hello!

This is my first posting here. As an admirer of Mozart's music (altough only HIP and on period instruments!) and through my interest in Urtext editions of his works, I became aware of this thread, to which I would like to say something. Please excuse my knowledge of English, my mother tongue is German.



You are referring to a very important advantage of Urtext editions! Bärenreiter prints here the (probably) wrong notes, but refers in a footnote to bar 48, so that, as you rightly say, the player himself can decide which version he thinks is right. I would be very interested to hear what Henle and Peters say about this passage.
I would not find it right for Peters to silently change this note without pointing out that there are other notes in the sources used.
This is why I would be interested to know if the Peters and Henle versions explain why they have corrected here.



Greetings,
Werckmeister2

Vienna Urtext agrees with Peters but gives the footnote, "b instead of c in first print and other early prints."

I like Vienna Urtext's Mozart Sonatas for the fuss it makes over staccato dots vs. wedges (although that is fairly meaningless, at least to keyboard players). 😁

Starting bar 5 to 8, it is a standard counterpoint 2 voice pattern often used in galant music and by Mozart. The upper voice goes from 6 to 3 and the bass line from 4 to 1 leading to an incomplete cadence which ends the first phrase.Mozart adds an inner voice to increase the texture during the cadence so the C is here a pedal point . In bar 7 the B is both the root of a diminished chord standing for the dominant and the lower auxilliary for the C which helps the inner voice to also be part of the cadence through the move C-B-C. So we have a very common II (seventh) - VII (V) - I. This cadential pattern is found quite often in multiple Mozart pieces. To be noted the recapitulation is not in the key of the tonic but in the subdominant standing for the tonic after the end of development in the relative minor; also a possible occurrence in classic music.

My Henle urtext edition agrees with the Peters edition, as do my Kalmus and even my Schirmer editions. I'd suggest asking your teacher.

When you say that these publishers agree with the Peters version, do you mean that they mention in the preface or footnote that they differ from the sources here? Or have they tacitly changed that note without any remark?

@WhoDwaldi: what is the “Vienna Urtext” Do you mean the New Mozart Edition? It is always important to me that changes are always mentioned and justified so that the reader can understand the publisher's decisions.

If Vienna Urtext says that there is another note in the sources, but does not justify why it was changed for the present edition, I would find that suboptimal.



Greetings,
Werckmeister2

I have also the Wiener Urtext from Leisinger. All these editions use the same sources; since the autograph is lost they all base their version on the 2 editions published after Mozart's death in 1805 in Vienna. The comment made in the Wiener is clear: the source has a B but because in the equivalent sequence bar 48 there is the tonic note they considered bar 7 as a mistake; either Mozart himself or the publisher. These type of corrections by comparing similar passages is fairly frequent but not always documented even in the best Urtext editions. In this case (see my previous note) there is little doubt that the note should be a C; but for other composers it is less the case. In fact the older is the source the more complex is the work of the editors to come up with a clean modern edition and they all make changes which are not documented.

For example the 2 main complete editions of Scarlatti sonatas, Kenneth Gilbert and Fadini all have made changes (different ones by the way - not even speaking of the Longo edition) to the manuscript by correcting what they considered as notationnal errors but do not explain where and why - though a true Urtext would indeed require that all the changes be documented. The only way is to go back to the facsimile but that would be too much work anyway. But practically deciding if a written note is an error or not requires a significant amount of knowledge in harmony, melody and the specifics of the period and the composer style; in addition the compositional rules used in various musical periods are different from our 19th century ones, so unless one is a specialist in these matters, knowing that an editor made an adjustment and deciding if that is correct or not would require advance expertise. BTW in the sonata K545 you could consider that the error is in bar 48 and not in bar 7; so the true reason why all editions have taken bar 48 as the correct version is based on typical Mozart style in similar cadential sequences.

I personally would not play Mozart pieces anyway, of which there is no autograph, but only some later prints, which are known to be mostly faulty or inaccurate. This is because of the slurring alone, which is immensely important, especially with Mozart, since these are not pure legato bows. Anyone who has read Leopold Mozart's violin school, for example, knows what I mean.

Nikolaus Harnoncourt wrote about this problem:





Greetings,
Werckmeister2

I would be most interested if you could explain a bit further -
* what are the wedges and how do they differ from dots?
* what sort of fuss does this edition make about them?
* why is this meaningless to keyboard players?
Thanks!

Wedges are a strings articulation, a kind of bowing with a tiny bit more accent than staccato. Distinguishing between wedges and dots on manuscripts can be difficult for editors, and Mozart was inconsistent in their use, so some publishers will only use dots. The string playing effect for wedges is not really replicable on piano without getting too tenuto, so (some say) they can be disregarded and played as "generic" staccato notes. (All this is off the top of my head, and I may need to refresh my research. 😁)

That´s another problem - to think that staccato notes or wedges in Mozart's time have the same meaning as staccato notes or wedges in the 19th or 20th century. As Harnoncourt already says, nobody tells people that you have to read this music differently!

Mozart was also not sloppy when it came to putting up playing instructions. He only had to place instructions where he wanted a playing style that deviated from the norm at that time. The musicians of Mozart's time learned how to play these instructions and also how to play notes in which there are no instructions. He assumed that the musicians of his time already knew how to play his notes through their training. The musicians would have been offended if the composer had written down what they already knew.
Only today's musicians no longer have this training, which was taken for granted at the time, because today's music education is completely different, and some unfortunately then say that the mistake lies with Mozart ...

One more reason for me to listen only to recordings by musicians who try to reappropriate the basic knowledge of that time!



Greetings,
Werckmeister2

There are a couple of reasons why Mozart notation is minimal; indeed most of the music was to be executed by professionals who had some knowledge of the style at the time but there are also some other reasons. 1-Mozart was writting a lof of music, sometimes very fast and therefore did not have time to put all the details in his autographs 2-Most of the time, on keyboard he would be playing his own work or would supervise the players and give verbal instuctions and 3-Mozart was used to improvise and fine tune his compositions during performances before finalizing on one version.

The first editions published during Mozart lifetime are always much more thorough and complete than the autographs (when they exist) and all the Urtext editions take the articulation marks mainly from the printed editions. Of the last 10 sonatas though only 4 still have an autograph (+ some pieces here and there).

One should not idealize the quality of musicians of the 18th century. Mozart and other composers letters are full of grievances against the poor quality of certain players. And we have today a significantly higher level of attention trying to play that music as it was written. Mozart and others were often struggling with either poor quality or sometimes lack of musicians altogether. But they were supervising the preparation (sometimes very short one) and could direct the musicians.

It's true that he wrote very quickly, and it's also true that, for example, he was mostly imprecise with the vocal texts, but with the notes he could assume that the musicians themselves knew how to interpret something because of their training. The composer only had to designate those passages in which he expressly wished a performance that deviated from the tradition, from the established norm.

And Mozart - despite the hectic pace in which he often wrote his works - attached great importance to the precise execution of his works. There is an eyewitness account of a contemporary of Mozart who sat in his loge long before the beginning of the performance and watched Mozart walk from one music stand to the next in the orchestra pit and look through the music sheets of the musicians. And Mozart also repeatedly made small corrections, for example in the tempo markings (for example, he corrected “Allegro assai” to “Molto Allegro”), which show that he paid close attention to details, such as the fine gradations in the tempo markings.
One can see here the precision with which he formulates his wishes in order to be understood correctly.
For example, "Le nozze di Figaro" was written in only 6 weeks, but has a very filed tempo and key dramaturgy (although the latter is mainly destroyed due to the use of "modern" instruments).



I find that incredibly exciting! You are absolutely right, in the past the musician was expected to improvise and be creative on the harpsichord or fortepiano. Today you usually only hear a few unloving chords - that's what you would have booed the continuo player for back then. Today this lack of creativity is acclaimed.



What do you mean?



I don't think ALL Urtext editions do. An example: I have the Urtext edition by Henle from Schubert's string quartet "Death and the Maiden". This is based on the autograph, and lists the mistakes of early editions in a critical report. So the autograph was used here.
But there are also conductors like Nikolaus Harnoncourt who compare the autograph itself note by note with the printed editions.



You are right, and Richard Strauss also complained at the beginning of the 20th century about some orchestras he was supposed to conduct. Of course not ALL musicians were professionals in Mozart's time, not all had a correct musical education. Leopold Mozart repeatedly points out in his violin school that there are many musicians who, in spite of their virtuosity and dexterity, constantly make mistakes, who cannot play the notes correctly, etc.

But in principle there were other music lessons than in the 19th and 20th centuries, and I only listen to musicians who try to acquire this knowledge as best they can. This music has so many beauties, so many refinements, which are eliminated by distorting interpretations.




Greetings,
Werckmeister2

Thanks, that is interesting and helpful.

What does a "wedge" look like? Can anyone point me to a link to a passage with wedges?

One thing I don't follow. You say that the string playing effect for wedges is not really replicable on the piano. Why would one want to? Are there wedges in Mozart's piano music?